Currently, there is a growing concern about the ability for people to illegally transport, toxic, dangerous, explosive or hazardous material, either overland, for example, by tractor-trailer or railroad, or on commercial airplanes via carry-on or checked luggage. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the ability for authorized personnel to reliably check for such materials, and to maintain records, is limited.
In order to minimize the risk of airline passengers or others transporting such materials on airplanes, the Transportation Safety Administration (TSA), which is a federal agency, screens baggage at all commercial airports in the United States, in an attempt to provide security to airlines and passengers. This screening process typically involves searching luggage and bags that are carried by passengers and “checked” (i.e., placed in a cargo compartment of the aircraft). In order to facilitate this screening process for checked luggage and bags, the TSA suggests that travelers keep their bags unlocked, if the bag is unlocked, the TSA will open and screen the bag. If the bag is locked, locks will be broken and removed. TSA officials will, typically, then secure bags and luggage with a plastic strip and will attempt to leave a note indicating that the bag was screened.
The above-described process gives rise to a host of problems. One problem is that, in instances in which bags are not locked, the bags are not secure, which enables unauthorized people to have access to a bag. Secondly, the present process lacks accountability of the screener. Thus, a screener could, either on purpose or inadvertently, remove contents of the luggage or bag during the screening process and there is no accountability to determine which individual (either a screener or other parson) had access to the bag and may have removed the contents.
Furthermore, once the plastic tie has been placed on the bag, it may be difficult for the traveler to remove the plastic tie upon reaching their final destination. The plastic ties cannot be reused once they are removed from a bag.
Conventional locks and latching mechanism are not adequate to solve the above-described problems. For example, one conventional approach is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 6,472,973, entitled, “Information Collection And Disseminator For A Realty Lock Box” issued to Harold et al., that discloses an information collector and disseminator for a realty lock box in which a wireless radio link is added to a real estate lock box to transfer data obtained from the access key pad to a nearby receiver, which sends the data to a central site computer and compiles the data for dissemination. The lock box can also be controlled from a central site via a radio link. While such a lock is useful in the real estate context, this type of lock does not fulfill the needs for a compartment or luggage lock.
Another conventional lock is disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,851,652, issued to Imran, entitled, “Electronic Lock Box, Access Card, System And Method.” This patent discloses a lock box in a secure entry system for use with a source of DC power having high frequency pulse width modulation thereon including a housing and a key container mounted in the housing movable between accessible and inaccessible positions. Circuitry is provided within the housing for controlling the movement of the key container and is adapted to be connected to the source of DC power. The circuitry is capable of receiving the high frequency pulse width modulated DC power. A capacitor serves to supply at least some of the power required by the circuitry during the time the pulse width modulation is occurring on the DC power supplied. While this patent solves the problem of preventing access to the lock by blunt force, such as a hammer blow, it does not adequately solve the problem of tracking the opening and closing of a lock.
Therefore, what is needed is a system that provides controlled/restricted access and accountability into the screening process of luggage or other compartments.